Theorems About Captain Kirk
by jgracetheauthor
Summary: Spock writes a letter to his cousin explaining in detail How Captain James T. Kirk is actually more logical than might at first appear.


Theorems About Captain Kirk

or

When a Vulcan Argues

Esteemed Taarlis,

I trust that all has been well with you and with all the others since I left Vulcan. I apologize for not having written sooner, but we have been extremely busy here in the past several months.

If memory serves, you and I parted on poor terms because of an argument we had. After having had time to think it through, I believe that we both acted somewhat illogically about the entire matter. Disagreements should be settled calmly through logic, and should not affect the relations between us. In this letter, I purpose to put forth my side of the argument, and trust that you will see my reasoning as plausible.

The discussion began thus: you claimed that the Captain under whom I have been privileged to serve, namely, James T. Kirk, is a completely illogical man. I took the liberty of disagreeing with you, and our opinions and the tone in which we voiced them were inappropriately stubborn. But I trust that you will give me the chance to right my mistake here and now.

I shall attempt to prove to you, by a series of theorems and syllogisms, that Captain Kirk _is_ in fact a logical man, for the most part. I suppose I must concede that he has his weak points and at times acts contrary to what logic dictates, but as a general rule, I believe that I can show that he is nearly as rational and reasonable as you or I.

Of course, one cannot prove any theorem without a number of postulates or axioms, so I shall first establish some that I believe we can both agree on.

Postulate number one: a perfect process of logical deductive reasoning is more important than the conclusion arrived at as a result of that process. I assume that you concur with me, as the correct pattern of reasoning is the foundation of our society.

Postulate number two: if a premise can be proved to be true, then by a valid logical process, the conclusion must also be true. This, of course, is a fundamental basic fact of logic.

Postulate number three: all premises, conclusions and other facts, are either true or they are false. Surely we can agree here - it may seem obvious, but I think it best establish this to avoid difficulties.

In my first syllogism, I shall take an example to which you referred often in our previous discussion. A few years ago, the Captain risked the lives of everyone on the crew by taking the ship in a dangerously close proximity to a dying star. The reason he did this was to rescue our ship's surgeon, Doctor McCoy, who was stranded on a transport there. You claimed that this was a completely illogical and therefore unjustified move, as the lives of over two hundred and fifty people outweigh the life of one man. Whether or not I agree with you is irrelevant here, I am attempting only to show you that he was acting with logic in this situation.

Premise, all life has inestimable value. Doctor McCoy is life. Therefore, Doctor McCoy has inestimable value. If the value of something cannot be estimated, it cannot be compared. The value of Doctor McCoy cannot be estimated. Ergo, it cannot be compared with the value of the other lives on the _Enterprise_. This indicates that Captain Kirk had a logical right to risk one for the other, as their values, being incomparable, do not enter into the equation. You may choose to argue with this conclusion, in which case I shall refer here back to postulate two, which says that if the premise of a valid logical argument is true, then the conclusion is true. You cannot possibly say that life does not have inestimable value, and I believe you cannot find a flaw in my reasoning. Therefore, Captain Kirk acted with logic in this instance.

In my next theorem, I shall take the liberty of selecting another incident from the Captain's career, this time a somewhat more dubious one. I remember you commenting on a story you'd been told about Captain Kirk's flirtatious relationship with an extra-terrestrial woman who's father had imprisoned us, and how he hoped that he could get her to set us free. Unfortunately, she only used his actions against him and nearly got us all killed.

On the surface this may seem like a very foolish act, but in fact, his logical reasoning in these situations is usually something like this: If a woman loves a man, then she will do anything for that man. This woman loved Captain Kirk. Ergo, she would do anything for him. Although the second premise proved untrue (and the first is not entirely certain), the train of reasoning from premise to conclusion is completely logical. And in postulate one, if you'll remember, I stated that the validity of a logical argument is what is important, not necessarily the validity of the conclusion arrived at. His reasoning here was flawless once more, and he had no way of knowing that the premises were incorrect. Your previous statement that the flirtation was merely for his own amusement was, in my opinion, offensive and uncalled for, and I shall assume that you did not indeed believe it yourself.

My third and final theorem shall not be taken from a particular incident in Captain Kirk's life, but rather his whole philosophy and general rule of ethics. You have shown great disdain for his compassionate actions, his outbursts of anger, his romantic relationships, his frequent apparent recklessness, and above all, his propensity to let his emotions figure in his decisions. I admit that it takes time - many years, in my case - to understand human logic, but it is there.

All of the traits that you find so abhorrent in Captain James T. Kirk boil down to one statement: he is human. Humans are different than we are, but that doesn't mean they are inferior. It doesn't even mean that they cannot behave logically. Although I wouldn't admit it to any of them - especially not Doctor McCoy - I sometimes wonder if I would not be wise to trade some of my logic for some of their feeling. Bearing this in mind, I will present my last theorem to you: Virtues are logical and necessary to decision-making. Some feelings, such as compassion, are virtues. _Therefore_: some feelings are logical.

Notice that I do not by any means claim that _all_ feelings are logical. There are many that I still don't understand, and don't expect to. But I have come to realize over the years that logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end. You will no doubt want to dispute this theorem, but if you do I must point you back to postulate three: all facts are either true or they are false. You would not go so far as to say that it is false that virtues are necessary, or that compassion is a virtue. If they are not false, they must therefore be true, and if both premises are true, then the conclusion is true, as stated in postulate two. I do not believe I leave you anywhere to go with your argument. I do not like to insult you, Taarlis, but I am forced to admit that I believe Captain James T. Kirk to be a more logical man than you are or ever shall be.

I look forward to hearing back from you, and may I remind you that when a Vulcan argues, he does so with logic, not with passion. If you cannot at first respond calmly and logically, I must ask you not to respond at all until you find that you can.

Your cousin,

Spock

Note: Spock never heard back from his cousin Taarlis, which did not entirely surprise or disappoint him. "After all," he said later, when discussing the subject in his memoirs, "Taarlis always was too much attached to the Vulcan way to allow open-mindedness."


End file.
